This is an important first step for Stewart toward understanding how media bias can exist, even though the members of the media think it doesn't. Maybe someday he'll start questioning how his own preconceptions affect his perceptions.

I can't ever recall being even slightly amused by one of his bits. I only see his stuff second hand, because I'm never moved to watch his show.

The smug hipster wise ass thing... hell, I've been listening to that for 45 years. It's predictable. The sex vs. violence thing is one of the favorite hipster wise ass dialogues. I've heard that one a couple of million times.

Nothing new here in terms of info. Re: the fighting judges... I still want to know what kind of fight to the death produces zero reports of scratches or injuries.

4 minutes and 36 seconds; at least 1 full minute of which consisted of mute sneering at his own wit. This word "brilliant", I don't think it means what you think it means.

The faux-Scotsman Stewart (apparently so ashamed of his own ethnicity that he changed his last name to hide it) does make two great points, though:

I'd like any of you noble libertarians (ScottM) to watch that sequence where the woman is ripped in half crotch-first, while alive and conscious, and tell me how it's vital to our freedom that this content be made available to young children.

I'm not sure what sort of society it is you want to live in. Maybe you should consider moving to Saudi Arabia or Iran. I think more people would agree with you there, that this is perfectly appropriate entertainment for young boys; and you can live amongst men who grew up watching actual decapitations and stonings.

And Stewart's other point, one I've made many times: The courts are a sham. When you get 5-4 splits along party lines over the meaning of the phrase "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", a simple phrase consisting of clear English words, then you no longer have judges judging, you have representatives of a particular constituency spinning and twisting.

(A) So why can a state not regulate distribution of violent video games to children? Serious question for the prof., I really want to know.

(B) I absolutely do believe that our politics shapes our reality now. Not sure this was always so much the case in the US. I think at one time our political views were determined primarily by our experiences, i.e. socioeconomic status, etc. We agreed on the facts (mostly) just not on the policy. Now, fact/truth/reality is no longer objective--truth is no longer a virtue to many, apparently. We are obligated to seek and adopt the most outrageous lies to demonstrate loyalty to our "team".

Ann, I adore your blog but this Jon Stewart segment, like most of them, was low propaganda masquerading as supposedly witty commentary, wrapped in average humor.

I can't be the only one for whom Jon Stewart has worn out his comedic wlecome. The most engaging thing I've seen Jone Stewart in lately was his interview with Chris Wallace, where Wallace essentially outpaced him.

All that Stewart did here was to repeat some low-leevl talking points: The SCOTUS ruling on video game violence was inexplicable (it wasn't, and it substantially promoted the First Amendment) mostly because the opinion was written by Scalia (note photo, as if it was his decision alone).

And also, without quallification, a "report" that Prosser choked Bradley (no other circumstances mentioned) and that all of the witnessing Wisconsin Justices are dividing their impressions of the incident based along party lines. (We really and truly do not know that.)

I don't ever recall seeing Stewart doing stand-up, although I'm sure he has. I would vehemently disagree with piling him in with Garofalo and Cho. Stewart has the ability to be funny with nothing more than facial expressions. Garogalo and Cho are dark periods in the history of comedy.

This is an important first step for Stewart toward understanding how media bias can exist, even though the members of the media think it doesn't.

Liberal bias reflects the real world.

Conservative bias is evil.

That's pretty much the whole argument, isn't it? The former must do everything possible to win ("It isn't over until we win") since the alternative is EVIL. Hell, a state supreme court justice may have tried to use a compliantly duplicitous press to defame a colleague.

Until that attitude is gone, serious conversation is not possible.

Regarding the violence in video, I seem to recall that in the 1950s there were congressional hearings about violence in fanatasy and sci-fi commics. What's the difference here? The graphical abilites of the technology?

More "we-know-what's-best-for-everyone-else" bushwa. In forty years, people will laugh at these concerns just as we laugh at 1950 congresscritter handwringing over comic books.

If the GOP in Wisconsin has to stand behind Mighty Justice Prosser for 10 more years, then they had better get him into some counseling on how to appear less combative. Using a smile and a gentle tone of voice would cost him nothing, and would make him less vulnerable to the Queen Abrahamson's skillful manipulations. Winning Prosser's fights that need not have even been fights makes him like a bad tooth.

X, I don't think it needs to be an actual human; it's fairly realistic and quite horrific.

Life is cheap in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, partly because young people are desensitized to death and violence. I don't want us to raise a generation of young men for whom life is cheap.

And I don't want to rely solely upon the judgment of their parents, many of which are drugged-up losers who don't give a damn what their children do all day. This impacts society at large, not just individuals.

And what exactly do we gain from this decision? It was only a ban on selling to minors, not a ban on the game itself.

I've always been curious why the hip, cynical pose is so often coupled with a leftist political viewpoint. Invariably, hipster cynics vote for Democrats (or other leftists like Nader) and yet it seems to me that the general philosophy and public image of left-of-center political parties, such as the Democrat party, is embarrassingly naive and ripe for cynical derision. Read some of Obama's campaign orations; how could cynical hipsters have listened to such bland, faceless, cringe-inducing treacle and yet voted for the man in droves?

It's never made sense to me. Maybe it's similar to the hipster fondness for self-consciously hideous retro fashion, like the current fondness for those big, smoke-colored, rounded-framed 80's glasses- so absolutely, manifestly awful and stupid that it's crossed the nether frontier of eye-rollingly-uncool and become cool again.

gerry -- no, because of actual violence. But let's roll the dice and see if incredibly life-like digital violence, in which the viewer actively participates and disembowels his foes and then dances over their corpse, has the same effect.

Because otherwise we might have to show our ID when we purchase "Gut-ripper IV", and that's a real inconvenience.

"Brilliant? But Stewart said "Oh my God!" twice interlaced with the "f-bomb". But maybe that was just yesterday's feigned outrage."

Go back and reread the post you are referring to and see if you can find your mistake.

Hint: I never used the word outrage. I said:

"Am I the only one who takes more offense at the blurted phrase "Oh my God" (by Joe Scarborough) than the use of the word "dick" to explain the President's behavior? I think insulting the President is rough political discourse, but saying "Oh my God" is taking the Lord's name in vain."

See? It's comparative. If I said a light pinprick hurts me more than the touch of a feather, I'm not saying the pinprick is excruciating.

Reading "Althouse" is a challenge, but I am dedicated to raising you to a higher level.

"I don't know. Stewart's hipster wise ass thing never seems funny to me. I can't ever recall being even slightly amused by one of his bits. I only see his stuff second hand, because I'm never moved to watch his show. "

Which is why your opinion here isn't very useful. How about watching the clip now and being honest about how good it is?

Actually, Stewart was so flustered by Wallace, he was essentially "spanked".

Stewart's Practice is called "Irony" which is essentially what every left wing comedian AND pundit thinks they are doing oh so well at today:Olbermann, Maddow, Garafalo, Colbert, Stewart, the basic Gen X, "Friends" snark, "I am so much smarter than you, can you even these idiots" thing.

My college attending generation children tell me "Irony" is dead. Frankly, Stewart, et al is already too unhip for the current. My kids just watched Stewart with me the other night and continually rolled their eyes. I think they just felt they were spending time with their old man and enduring something their generation doesn't really find funny.

Yes, you're probably right. The coarsening of society will continue unabated. In forty years, children will probably cut up small puppies for amusement. Yay.

You need to release your straw men. You'll sleep better.

Look, when our culture finds it unacceptable to suction out the viable human contents of uteruses as a means to achieve sexual and economic liberty, I may see some use in banning violent images. Until then, the coarsening can't get much worse than it already is.

It is a shock to a lawyer's system to see fantasy violence spreading like a plague. As a lawyer we seek compensation for personal injuries that NEVER heal. Permanent loss results from seemingly minor injuries, while we see violence from Hollywood since the 1920s (think of the Dirty Harry series by Clint Eastwood.) The motto at insurance companies has been that death cases are cheap compared to surviving permanent disability cases that must pay for 50 years of loss. The fear of to the violence today is of a replaying of violent acts in a video game hundreds of times until a child's subconscious sees it as normal in a world where we have recently thrown off the restraints of Christian as fast as the Government can pretends that religion is unconstitutional...I guess under the Commerce Clause, because the First Amendment says the exavt opposite, and they know it.

But let's roll the dice and see if incredibly life-like digital violence, in which the viewer actively participates and disembowels his foes and then dances over their corpse, has the same effect.

This sentiment is precisely what motivated congressional hearings in the 1950s about comic books. The only difference is the technology.

In fact, because videos are so much more graphical, they dumb-down imagination: comic books probably caused the reader to dwell more intently upon the violence depicted because they encouraged thought, rather than mere reaction. In that way, comic books may have been a greater threat than videos.

gerry: "...when our culture finds it unacceptable to suction out the viable human contents of uteruses as a means to achieve sexual and economic liberty, I may see some use in banning violent images."

But until Roe V. Wade is overturned, we'll continue to allow children to practice virtual murder and mayhem in graphic detail that requires active participation, as a punishment for society, or something.

That'll learn'em.

I think you have Descartes before the horse. If you allow a generation of children to grow up with a life-is-cheap attitude, you have a much, much slimmer chance of ever overturning Roe.

gerry, if you don't see an obvious difference, not just of degree but of kind, between a pixelly hand-drawn Batmant punching Joker with a "BOFF!" written sound-effect in a balloon over the action; and the ripped-apart-at-the-crotch shot in the Stewart video, particularly when the player probably has to move buttons on a control pad to cause that ripping...then we're just talking past each other at this point.

When they not only include ribs and vertebra and a spleen, but they have physics in the game realistic enough that the spleen gives a little "bounce" when it hits the floor, that's not really the same thing as Spiderman cocooning someone with web. You know?

But your logic doesn't hold up. A person saying "Oh my god" in response to another's using rude language towards the POTUS is deemed worse and "offends" you because it is taking the "Lord's name in vain". But Stewart's use of "oh my God"...multiple times...and interlaced with obscenities, for the purpose of comedy is simply deemed brilliant. See, that is also "comparative."

Add the fact that in Scarborough's case it was a reactionary response to a rude and unexpected comment...in Stewart's case a scripted use of words to get a reaction.

Reading Althouse is not much a challenge...well other than Carol Hermann's posts ;-)...but your logic certainly can be. But I am dedicated to commenting so that you can raise to a higher level.

I got a kick out of the feminist double standard being employed in the Bradley attack on Prosser story. It appears Bradley rushed Prosser and he fended her off. Feminists/leftists are outraged because they want to believe that Prosser "choked" a woman. You see, because women are soft, delicate, and angelic. And for purposes of the left here, unequal. Had this been an altercation between two male justices, and one rushed the other with one fending off or even restraining the attacker. No story.

Stewart point at the end was interesting. Perception is reality to some. The left know how to use perception shaping to create reality. Especially when reality does not suit their purposes.

If you allow a generation of children to grow up with a life-is-cheap attitude, you have a much, much slimmer chance of ever overturning Roe.

Roe is the horse. We already have more than a generation of people who think life is cheap, although the Roe Effect - which is the killing of the unborn offspring of pro-abortion women before they are born - may affect that in the years to come.

I think that you could make the case that, regardless of where it originated, the disdain for the "reality-based community" really has become the new normal condition of the political class in America.

The side debate about video violence is nice, but Althouse is right that Stewart concludes with a deeply cynical and sadly accurate conclusion about the credibility of lawyers dressed in robes. So tainted by personal politics that they are unable to deliver objective findings of fact and law, even when it is a "choke or no-choke" call right in front of their eyes.

America has deteriorated as a nation. Part of that rot as a nation is from ossification and loss of nimbleness in supplicating most major decisions of war and peace to "the courts" and lawyers dressed in robes. Many who we are 99% sure on how they will vote in any court decisions based on their underlying ideology (Thomas, Souter,Ginsburg, Sotomayor, many lower Court justices purely on who appointed them or their true ideology surfacing that was hidden to their appointers - ).

When we get someone "in the middle" we sometimes find a vapid thinker that is in the middle purely because they enjoy being the person both political sides of judges involved wine and dine..they relish the media and the Europeans on their two-month summer vacations lobbying them. The vapid, poor reasoning Sandra Day O'Connor, the diffident and loving it Anthony Kennedy.

We are now in a period where we deep down know that one of the most important reasons to elect a President..even one that is more likely to fail in office that the other sides candidate...is to get that permanent Democratic lawyer or Republican lawyer in Fed Courts.

Curious George: Reading Althouse is not much a challenge...well other than Carol Hermann's posts ;-)...but your logic certainly can be. But I am dedicated to commenting so that you can raise to a higher level.

If you allow a generation of children to grow up with a life-is-cheap attitude, you have a much, much slimmer chance of ever overturning Roe.

Roe is the horse. We already have more than a generation of people who think life is cheap, although the Roe Effect - which is the killing of the unborn offspring of pro-abortion women before they are born - may affect that in the years to come.

Supposedly, abortion isn't as fashionable and abortions themselves are way down.

This may be the effect of ultrasound, but the Roe Effect will intensify it. The specter of ZeroCare and its death panels make the idea that "this could be you" a lot more concrete than what the feminazis fantasize as a blob of protoplasm.

But I don't doubt Dr Berwick is counting on that view of life being cheap.

That's probably the first Daily Show segment that's had me freely laughing in years. It captured all the absurdity within our system, and did so in the hoped-for, goofily intelligent, manner I used to expect.

Too bad for me then. I'm having epistemological closure over here. Due to too much Jon Stewart's style of combing and picking, misrepresenting, mocking and mugging, "this damaging fraction we culled does not compute when presented as representing the whole," bemused mug, canned laughter, seal-like wet flapper applause. There's only so much a boy can take and I've had my fill long ago. I keep checking and it keeps being the same thing, so I put down my hoofie on this one. No Rally for Sanity, no O'Reilly interview, no Wallace interview, no purported moment of brilliance. Jon Stewart, you are dead to me. But thank you for offering.

I found the clip amusing, but couldn't he have made it even funnier by including a bit about an enraged Bradley coming at Prosser with fists flailing? This is why Stewart is ultimately a fail for me. I like even handed snark. Obvious bias is predictable and I like humor to surprise me.

"A federal appeals court today struck down Proposal 2, the Michigan referendum that banned affirmative action in college admissions, employment and contracting, setting up another U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the issue."

“It’s a tremendous victory,” Detroit attorney George Washington said today, shortly after the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that Proposal 2 was unconstitutional.

“Affirmative action is now legal in college admissions in Michigan and that means thousands of black, Latin and native American students who would have been excluded from our best undergraduate and graduate programs will now be admitted,” Washington said."-Detroit Free Press

“Affirmative action is now legal in college admissions in Michigan and that means thousands of black, Latin and native American students who would have been excluded from our best undergraduate and graduate programs will now be admitted,” Washington said."

I've always been curious why the hip, cynical pose is so often coupled with a leftist political viewpoint. This is something I frequently wonder since I am subjected on a daily basis to the crumbs of wisdom dispensed by such a person. They just assume that either everyone agrees with their point of view, or that we will be in awe of anything they say because of their intelligence. When what they are is merely glib and tiresome.

"You're politics shape your reality" is exactly right for far too many policians, judges and pundits (and even Stewart sometimes).

It shows up repeatedly, but most recently and most glaringly in how democrats opposed Bush on war related efforts and now support Obama on essentially the same efforts.

Pundits also are bad. Dionne is a great example. The poeple on TV are typicaly bad, altough last night on O'Reilly, Joe Trippi was honest, as was the blonde who was formerly Bush's press secretary. George Will and O'Reilly are two honest men. Not many others.

Politicians on abortion are another example. Virtually every democrat sees it one way and virtually every republican sees it the other way. There is no possibility those could be honest assessment of actual viewpoints. It is all political, with parties taking a position to secure support from interest groups. Shameful on such important social and moral issues as abortion and national defense.

Baby Boomers like Stewart because his show is a TV version Mad Magazine. He is Alfred E. Neuman giving us the news and analysis. The magic is that Stewart's style begs for viewers to see far more truth on current topics than NPR or the Alphabet Networks style allows.

Pastafarian advocates government content control: "I'd like any of you noble libertarians to watch that sequence [of human torture], and tell me how it's vital to our freedom that this content be made available to young children."

First, answer the basic question: should our unresponsive, corrupt, Federal government censor information for the good of the people? If you answer "Yes", we're done. But before you answer, remember this: the Feds are a blunt hammer: they can do nothing well, nothing with precision, they can only apply massive force. They will simply prohibit all controversial content. And you know, controversial content will include criticism direct or implied of the ruling class.

The much more interesting discussion is over on the "No" side. Now the 50 States have to decide. But the 50 States are no better at this than the Feds are. So it devolves to the cities. And the cities regulate the snot out of the adult entertainment business.

So the rest devolves to The People. And what you're afraid of is that your fellow citizens are barbarians who will raise their wretched spawn to be more barbarians. They must be stopped!

Or, you can control your child's access to the Internet and TV. Ignore their pleas and whines. You are a parent. Be one! Go to Church with your squalling brats and make them behave. Say prayers with them at night and read them the timeless stories from the Bible. As your children get older, read them the timeless stories of right vs. wrong, of Beowulf and King Arthur and the Odyssey and the Brothers Grimm. There's gore aplenty there, and moral lessons to be learnt. When they join Soccer and Football and baseball, be a coach, tough but fair. When they join Scouts, go camping and backpacking. Take them hunting. First rabbits, teach them to gut and clean them. Then, wild pigs. Let them hear the horrible death squeals from a .308 slug, and get their arms bloody as you clean and butcher the boar or sow to put food on the family table. Finally, make them backpack a 60-lb hindquarter of a 300-lb elk back to the car. They won't want to watch gory content, they'll have already had a bellyful.

In other words, be an example to your community, and show your community how your kids can be tough, civilized, and fair. You know what? The barbarians will want to be like you!

To summarize, Pastafarian complains that the Judges rule (and it's true, of course) based on their politics, and not on bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution.

It's not just Judges. They get this crap sandwich from the Legislature, signed by the Executive. In spite of the absolute language in the Constitution ("make no law", "shall not be infringed"), here's a law that does. Two branches of the Govmt have already abandoned the Constitution for factional expediency. Men are not perfect. Judges are weak. If they over-rule, they'll get the Andrew Jackson treatment, and their power will be at an end. To preserve the Union, they must find a way to reconcile and balance this crap sandwich law with all the other Constitutional clauses.

They say something like: "Our Jurisprudence does not recognize the existence of absolute rights". So as long as the Congress has a "good enough" reason, and the Judges can still be convinced that the government's powers are not yet unlimited, the law is OK. The Constitution has become an inferential guide, not a prescription.

The Fourth American Republic will be born when we elect a Congress and an Executive that once again bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution as it is written, rescind these contrary laws, and return Liberty to the People.

Doesn't anybody else find it troubling that the justices who witnessed the alleged choking have split along party lines? I'm cynical enough to believe that one side is lying for political reasons. (Also, I have clerked at a state supreme court--not Wisconsin).

So why don't they set up a rating system for video games like we have for movies? Games rated "R" can only be sold to a minor if a parent or guardian is present. Games rated "NC-17" can't be sold to minors at all. Why is it okay to prohibit the sale of a movie ticket, but not a video game?

When does a comedian crossover into being a political commentator and when does a political commentator cross over into being a comedian? Probably if they affect voting patterns. I abhore the gore. won't watch it. I don't want it associated in my mind with humor.

I did chuckle just a little at the end where Stewart makes funs of trusted adults who feel the need to be partisan.

I think part is what damns the leadership in the court. no one wants to be a person involved in that type of court. It would affect all their decisions whether they realize it or not. The type of t-shirt you wear could get you a jail sentence or set you free.

Thanks for the answer, Youngblood. In view of it and even though I consider many of these games deplorable, I'm satisfied with the system and the ruling. Individual responsibility is a necessary function of freedom, a messy business at best.

On the off chance that you check this thread again, I'd like to say one more thing:

In their proper context, Mortal Kombat fatalities are intended as "gallows absurdity", and I found the clip Stewart used to be hilarious -- even without his commentary on it. (I have actually employed similar hyper-violent imagery in my own work.)

At the same time, there are sequences in the film Titanic that make me turn away, and I have a very difficult time watching films about the Holocaust.

Not only that, but when I served in Iraq and was issued a 240B (a machine-gun) and set loose on the streets of Baghdad, I was perfectly capable of making moral decisions about the proper use of actual violence.

Fantasy violence and actual violence are different, and they have vastly different effects on people.